论认罪认罚案件量刑建议的效力——形式解释视角下的“一般应当”

On the Validity of Sentencing Recommendation in Guilty Plea Cases——"Shall Generally Adopt" from the Perspective of Formal Explanation

囿于立法规定的模糊性,目前学界和实务界对于《刑事诉讼法》第201条“一般应当”条款的理解莫衷一是,“应当解释论”与“可以解释论”两种观点难分伯仲。通过对两种结论的理论基点进行分析,可以发现“可以解释论”在立法原理、规范逻辑和诉讼基本原理方面均存在明显罅漏,而“形式解释论”对“一般应当”作“应当”之解更能契合制度的设计初衷和底层逻辑。虽然在当前阶段“应当解释论”面临诸多批判,但其并非像批判者认为的那样百弊丛生。对其内涵和逻辑进行深入考察,不难发现批判者的论证理由有些顾此失彼。同时,为避免采用“应当解释论”方案可能造成的法检冲突,采用幅度刑量刑建议、建立认罪认罚案件的强制说理机制及完善法官错案责任制度是使该方案更具可行性的理想进路。

Owing to the ambiguity of the legislative provisions,there is currently no consensus among academics and practitioners as to the understanding of the "shall generally adopt" clause in article 201 of Criminal Procedure Law,and it's hard to split the difference between the two perspectives of "interpretation of mandatory rules(shall adopt)" and "interpretation of optional rules(may adopt)".By analysing the theoretical basis of the two conclusions,it can be found that there are obvious gaps in the interpretation of optional rulesin terms of legislative principles,normative logic and litigation fundamentals,while the interpretation,which interprets the term "shall generally adopt" as "shall adopt",is more in line with the original design and underlying logic of the system.Despite facing numerous criticisms at the current stage,the "interpretation of mandatory rules" is not as inherently flawed as some critics contend.An in-depth examination of its connotations and logic reveals that the arguments put forth by critics may overlook certain aspects.Meanwhile,to avoid potential legal conflicts that may arise from adopting the "interpretation of mandatory rules",proposing sentencing guidelines with a specified range,establishing a mandatory reasoning mechanism in guilty plea cases and the reconstruction of judges' responsibility of misjudged cases are ideal ways to make this option more viable.